ML20045H421
| ML20045H421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1993 |
| From: | Doornbos R, Jordan M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H416 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-331-OL-93-01, 50-331-OL-93-1, NUDOCS 9307200192 | |
| Download: ML20045H421 (7) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-331/0L-93-01 Docket No.
50-331 License No. DPR-49 Licensee:
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company P. O. Box 351 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Facility Name:
Duane Arnold Energy Center Examination Administered At: Duane Arnold Training Center Palo, Iowa Examination Conducted: June 7 - 11, 1993 Examiners:
Rich Miller, Sonalysts Dave Odland, Sonalysts hi) h de,fn 7!$!73 Chief Examiner:
Roger [.i/Doornbos Da~te Approved By:
M P?k_
/' /L!i3 fficha'el g. Mordan, Chief Date Operator Licensing Section 1 Examination Summary Examination Administered durina the week of June 7. 1993 (Report No. 50-331/0L-93-01(DRS))
One previously licensed Reactor Operator and one additional individual wore given Senior Reactor Operator examinations, while two non-licensed operators were given Reactor Operator examinations.
Results: All individuals passed all sections of their respective examinations.
The following is a summary of the strengths and weaknesses noted during the performance of this examination.
Strenaths Communications between operators were good. (See Section 3)
Professionalism of candidates, trainers, on shift control room operators and supervisors, and managers was good.
(See Section 4)
Weaknesses Three of the four candidates failed the same job performance measure (JPM) and all had difficulty with other JPMs performed. (See Section 3) 9307200192 930712 PDR ADOCK 05000331 V
a 1
i REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners j
+ Roger L. Doornbos, Chief Examiner, NRC, Region III Rich Hiller, Sonalysts Dave Odland, Sonalysts 2.
Persons Contacted Facility
+ John Franz, VP Nuclear
+ David Wilson, Plant Superintendent
+ Richard Anderson, Assistant Opentions Superintendent
+ Joe Bashore, Operations Training Instructor
+ Ken Pevelar, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance i
+ Ken Putnam, Technical Support Supervisor
+ Steve Swails, Manager Nuclear Training
_4
+ Gary Van Middlesworth, APS - 0 & M U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (NRC) l
+C. G. Miller, Duane Arnold Resident inspector
+R Pulsifer, Project Manager
+ Denotes those present at the exit on June 11, 1993.
3.
Initial License Trainina Proaram Observations The overall condition of the training program is adequate. However, the Job Performance Measure area appears to need additional emphasis.
The following information is provided for evaluation by the licensee via l
their SAT based training program.
No response is required.
a.
Written Examination Strenaths/ Weaknesses:
No strengths or weaknesses were observed in this category during this examination.
b.
Job Performance Measures (JPlin i
Strenaths:
e No strengths were identified in this area.
l 2
Weaknesses:
Three of the four candidates failed the JPM for performing the required actions for going from single to two loop recirculation pump operations and all candidates had some difficulty with other JPMs performed.
This indicates a weakness in training candidates in JPMs.
c.
Administrative Strenaths/ Weaknesses:
e No strengths or weaknesses were observed in this category during this examination.
d.
Dynamic Simulator Scenarios Strenaths:
e Communications between candidates during this portion of the examination was a strength. Operators consistently kept each other informed about plant status and their actions.
Weaknesses:
No weaknesses were identified during this portion of the examination.
4.
Trainina. Doerations. Security. Rad Protection Strenaths:
e The professionalism of the candidates, trainers, on shift control room operators and supervisors, and the managers that the examiners interfaced with during the examination indicated the dedication of the facility to the quality expected in the operation of Duane Arnold.
Training personnel associated with the examination provided excellent support to the examiners by providing a high quality pre and post written exam review. Additionally, their simulator expertise was evident during pre-exam running of the scenarios.
Their contributions greatly assisted the examiners in assuring the administration of a high quality examination.
Plant radiation and security personnel made plant access and egress a smooth and unencumbered process.
e The individuals in the library were very helpful by providing access to computer equipment.
This allowed exam modifications to be clean and efficient.
3
a c
I Weaknesses:
No weaknesses were. identified.
5.
Simulator Observations No simulator discrepancies were identified.
6.
Exit Meetina An exit meeting with plant and corporate management and facility training department personnel was held at the Duane Arnold Training Center on June 11, 1993. Those attending the meeting are listed in Section 2 of this report. The following items were discussed during the exit meeting:
Strengths and weaknesses noted in this report.
General observations noted in Section 4.
1 4
l NRC POST EXAM COMMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS The following are exam comments identified by the NRC during written exam administration.
NRC resolution of the comments are provided following each exam question.
Question 29/30 on the SR0/R0 examination is as follows:
The plant is operating at 100% power with RPS bus A energized from its alternate power supply. Which one of the following describes the effect on the RPS/ isolation system if MCC 1B32 were to become deenergized?
a.
Reactor 1/2 scram, Group 4 and 5 isolations and 1/2 group 1 isolation.
b.
Reactor 1/2 scram, Group 1 through 5 isolations except MSIVs.
c.
Reactor 1/2 scram, and 1/2 of the Group 1 through 5 valves isolate.
d.
No automatic actions since MCC 1B32 is the alternate power supply to RPS bus B.
answer: b NRC identified comment: There is no correct answer provided for this question.
NRC comment resolution: Although answer b is partially correct, the correct answer would be " Reactor 1/2 scram,1/2 group 1 and 5 isolations, except MSIVs." The question was deleted from the exam.
Question 15/16 on the SR0/R0 examination is as follows:
Reactor power is 35% as sensed by turbine 1st stage pressure. Select the condition that will cause a full reactor scram.
a.
Turbine Stop Valves (TSVs) close.
b.
Turbine Control Valves (TCVs) fast closure (FASTC) oil pressure is 900 psig.
c.
Turbine Control Valves (TCVs) fast closure (FASTC) oil pressure is 500 psig.
d.
Turbine Stop Valve (TSV) "1" closes.
Answer: c NRC identified comment: There are two correct answers for this question.
d I
NRC comment resolution: Answers a and c were allowed as correct answers for this question.
Question 71 on the SR0 examination is as follows:
Following an automatic initiation of HPCI and RCIC, RPV level is at 100", the operator is directed to transfer RCIC discharge point from the vessel to the CST due to increaqing level. The expected system response for this action is:
a.
M0-2515, Test Bypass, will NOT remain closed, M0-2512, RCIC Inject, will NOT remain open.
b.
M0-2515, Test Bypass, WILL remain open, M0-2512, RCIC Inject, will remain open.
c.
M0-2515, Test Bypass, WILL remain open, M0-2512, RCIC Inject, WILL remain closed.
d.
M0-2515, Test Bypass, will NOT remain open, M0-2512, RCIC Inject, WILL remain closed.
Answer: a 4
NRC identified comment: There is no correct answer provided for this question.
NRC comment resolution: Although answer a is partially correct, the correct answer would be "M0-2515, Test Bypass, will NOT remain closed, M0-2512, RCIC Inject, will remain open" The question was deleted from the exam.
E Z
1 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT facility: Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No.
50-331 Operating Tests Administered On: June 8 & 9, 1993 The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during i
the June,1993 initial examination. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and
.)
review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations:
.j do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other j
than to provide information which may be used in future evaluations.
No i
licensee action is required in response to these observations.
During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:
4 1LEM DESCRIPTION None observed 9
7 k..